Case law

Magnolia Lumber Corp. v. Lithia Lumber Co.

241 Or. 65 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1965

Stretch v. Murphy, 166 Or 439 , 112 P2d 1018 . … Wright v. Wimberly, 94 Or 1 , 184 P 740 ; Ladd & Tilton Bank v. Mitchell, 93 Or 668 , 184 P 282 , 6 ALR 1420 .

Berry Transport, Inc. v. Heltzel

202 Or. 161 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1954

Caldwell v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 117 W Va 706, 188 SE 122 . As a noun, the word permit connotes the power to grant or withhold. Didlake v. Standard Insurance Company, 195 F2d 217. … Lazich v. City of Butte, 116 Mont 386 , 151 P2d 260 . A permit is a license granted by a competent authority by which some restraint or illegality is removed. Gordy v. Maestri, 170 L2 282, 127 So 628.

Drake v. Anderson

215 Or. 291 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1959

White v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 162 *295 Or 270, 273, 90 P2d 193 ; Engelgau v. Walter, 181 Or 481, 487 , 182 P2d 987 . From Hess v. … Kuhnhausen v. Stadelman, supra ( 174 Or at 311 ); Marshall v. Brown, 108 Or 658, 661 , 218 P 923 ; Timmins v. Hale, 122 Or 24, 37 , 256 P 770 .

State v. Warner

91 Or. 11 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1919

J., § 87, p. 41; Johnson v. State, 1 Tex. App. 333, at p. 345; Dixon v. State, 19 Tex. 134 ; Gregory v. Nunn (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 1083 ; Lee v. State (Tex. Cr. App.), 65 S. W. 540 ; Fisher v. State, 4 Tex. … J., § 88, p. 42; State v. Garrett, 71 Or. 298, 308 ( 141 Pac. 1123 ); Chavez v. Territory, 6 N. M. 455 ( 30 Pac. 903 ); Brown v. Moss, 53 Or. 518, 524 ( 101 Pac. 207 , 18 Ann. Cas. 541, and note). In State v.

Kiernan v. Portland

57 Or. 454 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1910

. * *” In Acme Dairy Co. v. … It is also urged that the amendment is void because it provides that upon completion of the bridge the executive board shall surrender and deliver the possession thereof to the county court of Multnomah County.

State v. Gee

28 Or. 100 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1895

By this act the county court is made the auditing board, and the funds set apart to the different road districts are disbursed under its supervision. … App. 329 ( 30 Pac. 504 ); People v. Heed, 1 Idaho, 531 ; State v. Briggs, 34 Vt. 501 ; Cunningham v. People, 4 Hun, 455 ; People v. Harrison, 8 Barb. 560 ; Fadner v. People, 33 Hun, 240 .

Jennings v. Lentz

50 Or. 483 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1908

Lowenberg, 38 Or. 159 ( 62 Pac. 647 ); Roberts v. Bourne, 23 Me. 165 ( 39 Am. Dec. 614 ); Pierce v. Odlin, 27 Me. 341 ; Losey v. Simpson, 11 N. J. Eq. 246; Bingham v. Kirkland, 34 N. J. Eq. 229; Calder v. … See, also, Haynes v. Jones, 5 Metc. (Mass.), 292; Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Lewis, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 509 ( 28 S. W. 101 ). The decree of the court below should accordingly be affirmed. Affirmed.

State v. Serrano

355 Or. 172 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 17, 2014

Ailes v. Portland Meadows Inc., 312 Or 376, 381-82 , 823 P2d 956 (1991) (quoting State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355-56 , 800 P2d 259 (1990)). … State v. Montez, 324 Or 343, 357 , 927 P2d 64 (1996). As previously discussed, an error is “apparent on the face of the record” only when “the legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute.” Brown, 310 Or at 355 .

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Ellis

356 Or. 691 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 20, 2015

See also State ex rel Currin v. … United States v.

State v. Riddle

330 Or. 471 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 10, 2000

Defendant suggests, moreover, that State v. … We know of only one case from this court, Nielsen v. Brown, 232 Or 426, 374 *485 P2d 896 (1962), that discusses that question, and it does not advance defendant’s cause.

State ex rel. Booth v. Bryan

26 Or. 502 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1894

Glann, 70 Ill. 232 ; Illinois Canal Trustees v. People, 12 Ill. 254 , 52 Am. Dec. 488 ; Huston Railroad Company v. Randolph, 24 Tex. 329 ; State v. Moore, 39 Ohio St. 486 ; Cincinnati College v. … W. 25 ; Redding v. Bell, 4 Cal. 333 ; State v. Slavin, 11 Wis. 153 ; Miller v. State (Kan.), 22 Pac. 326 ; Pritchard v. Woodruff, 36 Ark. 196 ; State v.

Howland v. Iron Fireman Manufacturing Co.

188 Or. 230 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1949

This court said: “ * * * To take such an oral lease out of the statute of frauds, however, the acts of part performance must be exclusively referable to the oral lease. * * * ” In Brown v. … The court then cited with approval the portion of Galvin v. MacKensie, supra, which we have quoted. It is significant that in Brown v. Sheedy, a law action, the court quoted with approval from Reynolds v.

Chatfield v. Zeller

174 Or. 59 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1944

“A He was treated by being placed at bed rest — on boards — boards placed upon the mattress so it will be solid — hard—and his back would be unable to move, and he was kept on his back and abdomen so the spine would be fairly … Thompson v. Union Fishermen’s Co-op. P. Co., 118 Ore. 436, 448 , 235 P. 694 .

Horsefly Irrigation District v. Hawkins

127 Or. 176 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1928

Under the general rule, therefore, the proceedings pleaded by defendant would not be a bar: La Follette v. Mitchell, 42 Or. 465, 471, 472 ( 69 Pac. 916 ); Stillwell v. … J., and Brown and Belt, JJ., concur.

Patterson v. Horsefly Irrigation District

157 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1937

In Humphry v. … Co. v.

Montgomery v. Multnomah Railway Co.

11 Or. 344 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1884

(Sullivan v. Board of Supervisors, 58 Miss., 791 ; Seal v. Donnelly, 60 Miss., 662 ; Rogers v. McCoy, 29 Mo., 267 ; The Mavent, 1 Sprague, 24 ; Arthur v. … (Bowman's Devisees v. Walker, 2 McLean, 376 ; Felton v. Deall, 22 Vt., 170 ; Benn v. Mayor, et al, 10 Barb., 223 ; Ladd v. Choline, 1 Minor, [Ala.,] 366; Lewis v.

Meaney v. Portland Electric Power Co.

131 Or. 140 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1929

In Russell v. O.-R. & N. … Brown and Belt, JJ., not sitting.

Philomath State Bank v. Gates

124 Or. 494 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1928

Appellants rely upon Archambeau v. Edmundson, 87 Or. 476 ( 171 Pac. 186 ), but we are unable to see wherein that case is controlling. There the execution and delivery of a written instrument was involved. … J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

Heuchert v. State Industrial Accident Commission

168 Or. 74 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1942

E. 281 ; Trampusch v. Kastner, 279 N. Y. S. 665, 244 App. Div. 431 ; Roche v. McDonald, 158 Wash. 446 , 291 P. 476 ; Carr v. Rischer, 119 N. Y. 117 , 23 N. E. 296 ; Blake v. Griswold, 104 N. Y. 613 , 11 N. … Brown & McCabe, 53 Or. 598 ( 101 P. 671 ); Devroe v. Portland Ry. L. & P. Co., 64 Or. 547 ( 131 P. 304 ); Hicks v. Peninsula Lbr. Co., 109 Or. 305 ( 220 P. 113 ); Elford v. State Ind. Acc. Comm., supra.” Armstrong v.

Humbert v. KNUTSON

224 Or. 133 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1960

Christy v. Rice, 152 Mich 563 , 116 NW 200 ; Bellington v. Clevenger (Mo), 228 SW2d 817 ; MacLaughlin v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 93 NJL 263, 108 A 309; Hughes v. Van Bruggen, 44 N Mex 534, 105 P2d 494 ; Atkinson v. … Drake v. Anderson, 215 Or 291 , 334 P2d 477 . Malice may be found from want of probable cause. Brown v. Liquidators, 152 Or 215 , 52 P2d 187 ; *141 Engelgau v. Walter, 181 Or 481 , 182 P2d 987 .